The day before Lehman Bros collapsed the CEO told investors in a conference call that the company was in no danger of insolvency. He knew exactly what was happening.

His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.

Does anyone understand the inherent conflict here? How can it be justified to withhold information that something is in danger of collapsing because disclosing it would hasten it?

Personally, I think that the truth should be laid out regardless of the consequences. If the truth causes a collapse, the collapse was inevitable anyway. All that gets bought by hiding the truth is a few days for the well-connected to get out and get clear.

I don't know the future of labcoin or any other security with any certitude. But I do know the truth when I see it. And the warning on BTC-TC was no exaggeration if you read this thread. If speaking the truth causes the price of a share to collapse, then maybe it should collapse. It is all the process of price discovery in a free market after all.

It seems to happen repeatedly in the securities business that owners refuse to deliver bad news because of the effect it will have on investors. They delay any real news as they scramble to put together enough performance to release a statement that is not bad enough to tank the shares. They delay, and delay, and delay. And then investors get antsy. And then they get frustrated. And then they get angry. And by then, no news will be good enough, and the whole thing comes crashing down.

The day before Lehman Bros collapsed the CEO told investors in a conference call that the company was in no danger of insolvency. He knew exactly what was happening.

His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.

Does anyone understand the inherent conflict here? How can it be justified to withhold information that something is in danger of collapsing because disclosing it would hasten it?

Personally, I think that the truth should be laid out regardless of the consequences. If the truth causes a collapse, the collapse was inevitable anyway. All that gets bought by hiding the truth is a few days for the well-connected to get out and get clear.

I don't know the future of labcoin or any other security with any certitude. But I do know the truth when I see it. And the warning on BTC-TC was no exaggeration if you read this thread. If speaking the truth causes the price of a share to collapse, then maybe it should collapse. It is all the process of price discovery in a free market after all.

It seems to happen repeatedly in the securities business that owners refuse to deliver bad news because of the effect it will have on investors. They delay any real news as they scramble to put together enough performance to release a statement that is not bad enough to tank the shares. They delay, and delay, and delay. And then investors get antsy. And then they get frustrated. And then they get angry. And by then, no news will be good enough, and the whole thing comes crashing down.

When will owners learn that delivering bad news is part of their job?

I'd like to point at that with LB, the CEO made the decision to disclose or not, and not the NYSE. The exchange has no place in these matters. Once it has decided to list a security it is up to the shareholders to decide what to do. Make a scammer thread on Bitcointalk, make a Reddit post, shout from the rooftops. Whatever floats your boat is within your rights as a holder, but the exchange is not the appropriate entity to be labeling securities as anything after they have been approved.

Edit: If I were Burnside I wouldn't even set the precedent that it is somehow the exchange's responsibility to inform shareholders that they may be investing in a scam. That could come back to bite.

Has one of my posts enriched your life? Has it made you feel warm and fuzzy?Tips here! 1KhmwZTDqNDKxm2Fnj9QgnfHgP6g7paqtc

You must realize that a lot of people read news from Labcoin stating "Congratulations! We are now fully hashing. The IPO is a success" and they bought shares. That announcement was never redacted. Right now the entire stock is operating by deceiving shareholders. The warning is appropriate.

You must realize that a lot of people read news from Labcoin stating "Congratulations! We are now fully hashing. The IPO is a success" and they bought shares. That announcement was never redacted. Right now the entire stock is operating by deceiving shareholders. The warning is appropriate.

You have just merged two different things.

A. They made a post about mining that was not redacted. (Does the exchange have proof one way or another to force a redact?)If proof has been requested and no responsive given in a timely manner, then the Exchange should make note of that to the investors and/or halt trading.

B. The warning is that there is controversial speculation. Nothing about if any news post is or is not a fact or fallacy. And therefore as is, unwarranted.

You must realize that a lot of people read news from Labcoin stating "Congratulations! We are now fully hashing. The IPO is a success" and they bought shares. That announcement was never redacted. Right now the entire stock is operating by deceiving shareholders. The warning is appropriate.

News Updates is a feature of the site that is completely handled by the securities operator. The exchange is not liable for that information. If a security operator is lying stop buying his stock. Again, it isn't the exchanges responsibility. Ukyo is right. If Burnside, for some reason, feels that he is obligated then he ought to do it right and launch a full investigation that lists facts.

Has one of my posts enriched your life? Has it made you feel warm and fuzzy?Tips here! 1KhmwZTDqNDKxm2Fnj9QgnfHgP6g7paqtc

I'd like to point at that with LB, the CEO made the decision to disclose or not, and not the NYSE. The exchange has no place in these matters. Once it has decided to list a security it is up to the shareholders to decide what to do. Make a scammer thread on Bitcointalk, make a Reddit post, shout from the rooftops. Whatever floats your boat is within your rights as a holder, but the exchange is not the appropriate entity to be labeling securities as anything after they have been approved.

Edit: If I were Burnside I wouldn't even set the precedent that it is somehow the exchange's responsibility to inform shareholders that they may be investing in a scam. That could come back to bite.

I think his point may be that regardless of who lays the truth out, it should be. Even if this is not currently the way things operate in the 'real world'.

Although as you can see, the last payment is rounded off, while the others were not. I know my auto payments from BTC guild are rounded off, if you're over your threshold they actually don't send the extra, that gets kept for the next payout. I'm not sure why the old ones were irregular like that.

EDIT: Quick note, Hashrate calculation is based on 1 B2 Avalon doing making 0.33 BTC in the past 24 hours on BTCGuild.

Where's our update? Any explanation as to why mining output is so low?

People thought they might be mining with the 3 Avalons that one of them had, or it was possible that someone might be sending their BTCGuild payments to their address to pump the price up. Except, they'd need to have a ton of hash power to keep doing it.

Up until now it did look like their hashrate was consistent with the 3 avalon theory, but this latest one is equivalent to 4.8 Avalons. We still can't say for sure, but it's looking less likely. We also can't rule out the 'outsider sending his payments to pump the price' theory. But the longer these payments go on, the less likely that is, and the more hash power that person would need to have.

They're up to 5.87 BTC right now. So, while it would be possible to make that much flipping the stock with the crazy fluxuations lately, it's less likely.

Still, I'm not suggesting anyone buy this stock with anything other then money they feel like gambling. I would still consider it extremely high risk at this point.

The whole Avalom theory is completely flawed, avalons work they could of had them running the whole time. There is no point logically for them to not run them until now. Makes no sense.

I didn't come online until this morning, it seems labcoin has came across a huge fluctuation due to lack of communication and explanation to the mining address.

All I want to say is yesterday and the day before that is Chinese Mid-autumn Festival, which is a very important holiday for Chinese (family reunion and most of the people don't work during these three days). This holiday might be the reason for no response or not hashing. Alhough it's not surprise to see these reaction from investors since labcoin is already at the bottom of credibility, I still suggest people wait for their official response and clam down. Some speculation might not be right since we don't have sufficient information to make that judgement and this is why I request labcoin enhance their communication.

Sorry to miss the chance to buy low , but I was on Mid-autumn Festival Holiday

EDIT: Burnside's message is clearly negative, as an exchange it should be remain neutral especially when there is nothing come from Labcoin. If Burnside intend to do this to protect the investors, he should do some investigations before the security IPO, not after.

People complaining about Burnside's warning message 'destroying value' - the value of a share is equal to its discounted future cash flows. Nothing Burnside posts on the page for the Labcoin security page directly affects this, and I'm struggling to see how it indirectly affects it.

Either you're a value investor who bought Labcoin on fundamentals, in which case all that matter is reality, not commentary, or you're a day trader, in which case you really need to learn to take fluctuations due to temporary sentiment in your stride.

I hope that you're the former - and if you still believe labcoin to be a good value proposition the current volatility is an opportunity, not a problem.

Of course, as more info emerges (or doesn't!) we each reassess what we think the value of this security is. But Burnside's post didn't contain any new information, so didn't affect fundamentals.

Edit: spelling

Unlevereged financial instruments acting as a store of value that fluctuate 50% within 10 minutes is perfectly acceptable. I think it should be offered in IRA form to soon to be retirees.

People complaining about Burnside's warning message 'destroying value' - the value of a share is equal to its discounted future cash flows. Nothing Burnside posts on the page for the Labcoin security page directly affects this, and I'm struggling to see how it indirectly affects it.

Either you're a value investor who bought Labcoin on fundamentals, in which case all that matter si reality, not commentary, or you're a day trader, in which case you realy need to learn to take fluctuations due to temporary sentiment in your stride.

I hope that you're the former - and if you still believe labcoin to be a good value proposition the current volatility is an opportunity, not a problem.

Of course, as more info emerges (or doesn't!) we each reassess what we think the value of this security is. But Burnside's post didn' contain any new information, so didn't affect fundamentals.

What the fuck are you smoking? Of course the warning message affected general sentiment. If I am someone who just threw a few Bitcoins in this based on what I read in the description, and then I popped in there today to find that the price had dropped, and noticed this scary message sitting on top of the page indicating that "There is a lot of controversy..." I would most certainly be dumping what I had. Now, whether Burnside's actions were justifiable is debatable, but to delude yourself into thinking that this has no impact on the market is just plain ignorance.

Was I helpful or insightful? Feel free to say thanks! 1PuoasR1dYtNq9yYNJj9NreDAfLEzc3Vpe